Gingrich: John Bolton will be my secretary of state

[bbarrick8383]

Except that I’m neither democrat nor catholic. I may become Catholic, but I’ll never be a democrat!

This is a serious question though. I’d rather have a serious response, or none at all. This is one of the major hurdles I’m facing.

I admit I should have worded that differently.

The logic is still the same.

Are you looking to become a Catholic for yourself or for others?

If I were to base my decision on whether or not to become Catholic on the members then I don’t think it would be very wise.

How are you a bleeding heart liberal and not Democrat? Are you a card carrying communist/socialist or something?

 

[ishii]

Except that I’m neither democrat nor catholic. I may become Catholic, but I’ll never be a democrat!

This is a serious question though. I’d rather have a serious response, or none at all. This is one of the major hurdles I’m facing.

In what way are American catholics “Republican first, Catholic second” ? Just give a couple of examples, please.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

If as you say there’s a problem with it, Ishii, I had nothing to do with writing the document. It came from a conference of bishops, of Apostolic successors. Actually it was even the newly re-written introduction from this yr. I only quoted clear words from it. I would have thought they’d have corrected the problem you perceive when they did the rewrite if it were a problem. But apparently there are disagreements about it as I know some posters like to quote individual members of the hierarchy on the topic in comparison to the bishops’ conference on the whole. If there’s ambiguity, you’ll have to take it up with the USCCB I suppose if you disagree with their wording. Not with me.

Cmatt, since you seem to want to defer to the USCCB then read this and let me know what you think:

*"Most Americans believe that abortion should be illegal except in certain limited circumstances; an overwhelming majority agrees that unmarried minors should not obtain abortions without parental knowledge or consent. Nonetheless, pro-abortion or so-called “pro-choice” groups have mounted a campaign to convince legislators and others that Americans want abortion on demand. These organizations have formed new political arms and have intensified efforts to defeat politicians who do not support permissive abortion. Because of the critical importance of the issue and the need for a timely response, we wish to reaffirm our conviction that all human life is sacred whether born or unborn. With the Second Vatican Council we declare that “from the moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes” (Gaudium et Spes, para. 51). *

old.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/resabort89.shtml

So do you, with your allegiance to the USCCB agree then that the pro-choice politicians are really pro-abortion politicians as the quote says they are?

Ishii

 

[Jocko_VT]

I admit I should have worded that differently.

The logic is still the same.

Are you looking to become a Catholic for yourself or for others?

If I were to base my decision on whether or not to become Catholic on the members then I don’t think it would be very wise.

How are you a bleeding heart liberal and not Democrat? Are you a card carrying communist/socialist or something?

My interest in Catholicism is because much of what I see in Catholicism strikes me as Truth. However, I see so many people on these forum (and in the media) who give the impression that a good catholic should be pro Iraq-war and pro-global free-market capitalism, etc. And I see in this thread Catholics who seem to have the impression that Newt Gingrich is a better candidate–from a Catholic perspective–that Barack Obama. Perhaps I feel like I’m missing something about Catholicism? I’m not sure.

Democrats, just like Republicans, have politicized the abortion issue to the point that there’s no viable political solution. More abortions occur than would otherwise occur because Republicans, on the one hand, keep pushing for the illegalization of abortion under any circumstances, and Democrats, on the other, keep insisting on the legalization of abortion under any circumstances. (and abortion is just one example). Thus, I’m turned off by Democrats. Democrats are neoliberals, too…just not as much as Republicans. Thus, I’m turned off by Democrats. Democrats nurture the “politically correct” culture. Thus… Neither party represents Catholicism. Nor is either party closer than the other to being a “Catholic Party,” from what I see.

Yeah, my politics are more in line with those of the Democratic party than the Republican party, but not everyone’s going to fit into one of those parties. I’m happy to remain outside of either party. I can sympathize with both the Tea Party (exclusively their “small government” platform–nothing else!), and I can sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street movement. I recognize that the economic issue isn’t one of socialism vs. capitalism, but one of large-scale vs. small-scale. In the case of politics and economics, small-scale is the only viable option.

I’m just not a Democrat.

 

[Jocko_VT]

In what way are American catholics “Republican first, Catholic second” ? Just give a couple of examples, please.

Ishii

It’s evident from these forums (this thread, too) that so many Catholics see someone like Newt Gingrich (or George Bush) as a better Catholic candidate and Obama (or Clinton, or whomever). Of course, one can always cite abortion, but they have to ignore everything else (economic justice being the prime example). Furthermore, so many on here seem to think that free-market capitalism, unrestrained, is appropriate, and that the war in Iraq was/is a just war… This is what I’m getting at.

 

[bbarrick8383]

My interest in Catholicism is because much of what I see in Catholicism strikes me as Truth. However, I see so many people on these forum (and in the media) who give the impression that a good catholic should be pro Iraq-war and pro-global free-market capitalism, etc. And I see in this thread Catholics who seem to have the impression that Newt Gingrich is a better candidate–from a Catholic perspective–that Barack Obama. Perhaps I feel like I’m missing something about Catholicism? I’m not sure.

Democrats, just like Republicans, have politicized the abortion issue to the point that there’s no viable political solution. More abortions occur than would otherwise occur because Republicans, on the one hand, keep pushing for the illegalization of abortion under any circumstances, and Democrats, on the other, keep insisting on the legalization of abortion under any circumstances. (and abortion is just one example). Thus, I’m turned off by Democrats. Democrats are neoliberals, too…just not as much as Republicans. Thus, I’m turned off by Democrats. Democrats nurture the “politically correct” culture. Thus… Neither party represents Catholicism. Nor is either party closer than the other to being a “Catholic Party,” from what I see.

Yeah, my politics are more in line with those of the Democratic party than the Republican party, but not everyone’s going to fit into one of those parties. I’m happy to remain outside of either party. I can sympathize with both the Tea Party (exclusively their “small government” platform–nothing else!), and I can sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street movement. I recognize that the economic issue isn’t one of socialism vs. capitalism, but one of large-scale vs. small-scale. In the case of politics and economics, small-scale is the only viable option.

I’m just not a Democrat.

Not what I would consider the typical bleeding heart liberal either. Doesn’t matter what religion you are though, people seem to be set in their political beliefs and that’s going to make it seems as if those beliefs are above their religion. We all justify what we want to believe to some extent or another, it just seems Democrats have to jump through more hoops to do so.

 

[Jocko_VT]

We all justify what we want to believe to some extent or another, it just seems Democrats have to jump through more hoops to do so.

Maybe. I kind of feel like Republicans have to ignore everything the Church says–notwithstanding to topics of gay marriage and abortion–in order to sustain their simultaneous *staunch *Republicanism and their Catholicism.

I’lll certainly concede that I may just be wrong about this. But this is what I’m trying to sort out. How can one truly support the war in Iraq, and support the current Republican approach to economics and health care, and be a Catholic? It’s just as bad as being a pro-choice Democrat, in my eyes.

 

[rlg94086]

It’s evident from these forums (this thread, too) that so many Catholics see someone like Newt Gingrich (or George Bush) as a better Catholic candidate and Obama (or Clinton, or whomever). Of course, one can always cite abortion, but they have to ignore everything else (economic justice being the prime example). Furthermore, so many on here seem to think that free-market capitalism, unrestrained, is appropriate, and that the war in Iraq was/is a just war… This is what I’m getting at.

Well, the, common, error you are making is to assume that the Democratic Party’s view on economic justice are more “Catholic” than the Republican view. Neither is perfect. The Church is opposed to the Welfare State and large, bureaucratic government institutions (Democrat). While there are some laissez-faire capitalists within the Republican Party, the party is not against all regulation, all safety net programs, etc. Even people like Ron Paul are okay with much of those things being done at the state level, which is completely okay from a Catholic perspective.

As far as the Iraq war, do you really think that is germaine to the 2012 election? Just War criteria are considered in each instance of war. We are pulling out of Iraq at this time, so it is kind of silly to take that one instance and judge the party based on it. What about Libya? Uganda? Viet Nam? Kosovo? Etc? Were all of these Just Wars? When it comes to war, neither party is anti-war.

So, taking these facts, and the fact that the Democratic Party is pro-Gay Marriage, pro-abortion “rights,” pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Research (thankfully, much of that overhyped science is diminishing, since they’ve found out it isn’t worth pursuing), it makes complete sense for Catholics to favor the Republican Party.

 

[ishii]

It’s evident from these forums (this thread, too) that so many Catholics see someone like Newt Gingrich (or George Bush) as a better Catholic candidate and Obama (or Clinton, or whomever). Of course, one can always cite abortion, but they have to ignore everything else (economic justice being the prime example). Furthermore, so many on here seem to think that free-market capitalism, unrestrained, is appropriate, and that the war in Iraq was/is a just war… This is what I’m getting at.

I think you’re caricaturing some of the posters on this forum and making a bunch of strawmen - hardly deserves a response. However, if you want to understand why I vote for the Republican over the Democrat, it is because I understand the importance of voting for candidates who come the closest to following Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life, first and foremost. After that, I vote for the candidate who I agree with on economics. Catholic teaching, you might be surprised to learn, does not require anyone to vote for a candidate who proposes a particular economic plan, such as Nancy Pelosi’s plan, e.g. Have you heard about the Catholic principle of subsidiarity? It would seem to be at odds with the liberal/left idea that we need the federal govt. to be heavily involved in our lives at so many levels and spend so much money. You might say that the GOP is at odds with the Church in the matter of the Iraq war. Did you know that Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton also voted for the war? So if many in the GOP are at odds, so are many self-professed “bleating heart liberals”.

In short, on the issues that count, (and certainly more often than the Democrat party) the GOP candidate is closer to Catholic teaching. That is why I vote for them. I would appreciate if you could respond substantively and not engage in strawmen arguments.

Ishii

 

[rlg94086]

Maybe. I kind of feel like Republicans have to ignore everything the Church says–notwithstanding to topics of gay marriage and abortion–in order to sustain their simultaneous *staunch *Republicanism and their Catholicism.

I’lll certainly concede that I may just be wrong about this. But this is what I’m trying to sort out. How can one truly support the war in Iraq, and support the current Republican approach to economics and** health care**, and be a Catholic? It’s just as bad as being a pro-choice Democrat, in my eyes.

Adding health care to my other post…

Again, state solutions are completely licit from a Catholic “universal access to health care” perspective. The Church does not require a federal program. In fact, in light of subsidiarity, the arguement could be made that the Church would very much favor state solutions.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Well, the, common, error you are making is to assume that the Democratic Party’s view on economic justice are more “Catholic” than the Republican view. Neither is perfect.

Correct. I’m not saying one can NOT be Republican (or Democrat). But that one should be Catholic first, I think. This would inevitably, I think, require that one part ways with the republican party line regarding the war in Iraq (and, yes, for the record, I’d say that Libya was more just than Iraq, though arguably still not arising to the level of a “just war,” at least insofar as American involvement is concerned). I’ve never suggested that the Democratic party was a more “catholic party,” (or, at least, I didn’t mean to!).

 

[Jocko_VT]

I think you’re caricaturing some of the posters on this forum and making a bunch of strawmen - hardly deserves a response.

Thanks for responding, nonetheless!!

However, if you want to understand why I vote for the Republican over the Democrat, it is because I understand the importance of voting for candidates who come the closest to following Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life, first and foremost.

If abortion is the litmus test, I get it. Fair enough. Personally, I can’t see letting everything else go, but I understand what you’re saying.

After that, I vote for the candidate who I agree with on economics. Catholic teaching, you might be surprised to learn, does not require anyone to vote for a candidate who proposes a particular economic plan, such as Nancy Pelosi’s plan, e.g. Have you heard about the Catholic principle of subsidiarity? It would seem to be at odds with the liberal/left idea that we need the federal govt. to be heavily involved in our lives at so many levels and spend so much money. i

Nor does it require that you vote for a “pro-life” candidate. You needn’t be a single-issue voter.

I’m well acquainted with subsidiarity. It’s not just about politics! It’s about economics as well!! Thus, it’s at odds with the big-gov’t supporters, and at odds with those who support a global free-market capitalism!! This is why I mentioned above that I empathize with both the Tea Party and the Occupy-Wall Street movement.

You might say that the GOP is at odds with the Church in the matter of the Iraq war. Did you know that Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton also voted for the war? So if many in the GOP are at odds, so are many self-professed “bleating heart liberals”.

It’s “bleeding” heart liberals. Why take a swipe like that? Hardly the Christian thing to do, eh?

We needn’t go over the lies that went into the Iraq war build up. The point is the support of the war rather than the support of the politicians, and everyone I know personally who supports the war is Republican.

In short, on the issues that count, (and certainly more often than the Democrat party) the GOP candidate is closer to Catholic teaching.

You’ve mentioned one–abortion (did you mention gay marriage too? That would be two.).

On economics, generally speaking, there’s no contest–Dems are closer.

Please. Don’t accuse me of making straw man arguments, because I’ve made none. I’m not interested in the insults. If you persist, I’ll simply ignore you. I don’t want to be pulled in, and I will get pulled in if I continue to read insults.

 

[rlg94086]

Correct. I’m not saying one can NOT be Republican (or Democrat). But that one should be Catholic first, I think. This would inevitably, I think, require that one part ways with the republican party line regarding the war in Iraq (and, yes, for the record, I’d say that Libya was more just than Iraq, though arguably still not arising to the level of a “just war,” at least insofar as American involvement is concerned). I’ve never suggested that the Democratic party was a more “catholic party,” (or, at least, I didn’t mean to!).

Well, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, it would not require that. During the Iraq War, he stated that good Catholics could differ on the war.

The Libya war is not more just than Iraq, as far as I can tell - certainly not from an American involvement standpoint. There was no threat from Libya to the US or any of its allies.

 

[ishii]

Correct. I’m not saying one can NOT be Republican (or Democrat). But that one should be Catholic first, I think. This would inevitably, I think, require that one part ways with the republican party line regarding the war in Iraq (and, yes, for the record, I’d say that Libya was more just than Iraq, though arguably still not arising to the level of a “just war,” at least insofar as American involvement is concerned). I’ve never suggested that the Democratic party was a more “catholic party,” (or, at least, I didn’t mean to!).

I think that I am Catholic first. You’re not going to find a 100% catholic candidate anywhere - not even among the catholic candidates! (especially not among the Democrat catholic candidates). The challenge is to find the closest thing to the Catholic candidate. In 2012 that may ironically end up being the Mormon candidate.

Ishii

 

[Jocko_VT]

Adding health care to my other post…

Again, state solutions are completely licit from a Catholic “universal access to health care” perspective. The Church does not require a federal program. In fact, in light of subsidiarity, the arguement could be made that the Church would very much favor state solutions.

That you contrast “federal” with “state” reveals very much the problem I’m getting at. Yours isn’t a Catholic perspective so much as a distinctly American perspective (and, of course, a Republican perspective)–no one else would invoke the state! Subsidiarity would prefer the family/community solution, not only to health care, but to all consumption and production. You mention health care, because you’re a Republican. You ignore all other consumption, though! What if we resorted to family/community, or even state, solutions for providing food and clothing and medication?!?! That’s what we should strive for, I think, from a Catholic point of view. Perhaps it wouldn’t be feasible for medicine, but it certainly would be in most areas for food and clothing.

And perhaps we should forgo mass media and consume only local media! And the list is extensive, of course.

Regardless of whether you favor the state (as you seem so) or the family and community (as I do), free-market, global capitalism, is an obstacle rather than an answer.

I don’t think Republicans or Democrats have the answer. I do think the Catholic church has the answer, though. Alas, I don’t think most Catholics (in America, at least) put the Catholic answer first.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Regardless of whether you favor the state (as you seem so) or the family and community (as I do), free-market, global capitalism, is an obstacle rather than an answer.

We do not live in a “free-market, global capitalism” society.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I think that I am Catholic first. You’re not going to find a 100% catholic candidate anywhere - not even among the catholic candidates!

agreed.

(especially not among the Democrat catholic candidates). The challenge is to find the closest thing to the Catholic candidate. In 2012 that may ironically end up being the Mormon candidate.

Ishii

Ironic indeed. But, do you really think the guy is honest? To an extent I’ve never seen before, his “positions” seem to be completely for the sake of getting elected, rather than being his true positions.

Aside from gay marriage and abortion, what are a couple of the problems you have with Obama that you don’t have with Romney?

 

[Jocko_VT]

We do not live in a “free-market, global capitalism” society.

I completely disagree, but we needn’t argue about it.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I completely disagree, but we needn’t argue about it.

What we live under is more like global corporatism. The government(both parties) favors corporations to the point that true free market capitalism can not work properly.

Arguing is what we do best around here.

 

[rlg94086]

That you contrast “federal” with “state” reveals very much the problem I’m getting at. Yours isn’t a Catholic perspective so much as a distinctly American perspective (and, of course, a Republican perspective**)–no one else would invoke the state! Subsidiarity would prefer the family/community** solution, not only to health care, but to all consumption and production. You mention health care, because you’re a Republican. You ignore all other consumption, though! What if we resorted to family/community, or even state, solutions for providing food and clothing and medication?!?! That’s what we should strive for, I think, from a Catholic point of view. Perhaps it wouldn’t be feasible for medicine, but it certainly would be in most areas for food and clothing.

I’m applying subsidiarity to the American political system. What political system do you think I should apply it to? Zimbabwe? I gave the state as an example, but in many cases the city or county are the correct place. I did not mean to imply otherwise. Also, non-governmental entities are great!

Regarding family/community to all consumption and production, the Church doesn’t teach that…I have no idea where you are coming up with that idea. Could you cite something that gave you that impression? There is nothing wrong with buying clothes made in another country, for example, from a Catholic perspective. There is nothing wrong with global corporations from a Catholic perspective.

I don’t think Republicans or Democrats have the answer. I do think the Catholic church has the answer, though. Alas, I don’t think most Catholics (in America, at least) put the Catholic answer first.

I do put the Catholic answer first, as do many Catholics. You are making generalizations based on your own personal assumptions. It isn’t charitable, but it happens a lot when people are trying to justify their particular view by claiming everyone else is “non-thinking,” “putting politics before faith,” etc. Do some people do that? Sure. However, just because people come to a different conclusion than you, it doesn’t mean they are putting politics first.